See the car drive in mud! See it in the shallowest stream on Earth! Listen to the dramatic music as the car handles an ordinary S curve.
The hard-sell is comedic than anything else. Why Chevrolet took that approach, I don't know.
What the film doesn't say is a professional driver is involved in all the tests. And I don't know how showing a car flipping over several times is a selling point.
The Corvair bashes into some 1959 Chevys. "It took the punished and asked for more," says Les Tremayne. A talking car? Is this one Ann Sothern, too?
The Corvair was apparently so secret, it had to be disguised for tests. That'll fool those spies from DeSoto.

It had many critics. Even some GM owners. I think it was that dramatic switch from cars as big as boats with huge fins to this sexless little pillbox. It happened overnight in 1960. People don't tolerate change very well.

…this is a fun vintage ad for a 1960 automobile.

there is a guy that used a small part of this video in his music video and claims its his. and wont realise it so it gets content id match and you get a strike for using it.

First, this video is a terrific piece of advertising probably used during a car show or a conference. As a former owner of a 1965 Corvair, this video would have been a prized piece of collectable and certainly would be running on a netbook in the bonnet during car shows.
Second, as I stated before, I'm a former owner of a 1965 Chevrolet Corvair and I have to say it was one of the best handling cars I've ever driven. The reviewer who mentioned putting sand bags in the bonnet was correct as the benefits were two fold. It helped keep the front wheels planted firmly and could be used when you encountered ice on the driveway.
As far as Corvairs killing teens, I was 16 when I bought my Corvair from my uncle and I had one accident in the car where a nut job in a Camaro ran a red light and slid into my front fender making a fist sized dent in the steel. Had I been driving my son's Suzuki Sidekick in that accident, the nose of the Sidekick would have been demolished. Regarding the excerpts from John Delorean's book about teens expiring in Corvairs I say "DUH!" It was a cheap sexy car and lots of teens were driving them. I've lost many friends in "supposedly safer" cars doing stupid things so of course it follows that teens died in Corvairs.
I loved my Corvair and only sold it to help pay to get into college. If I could trade my 1978 Triumph Spitfire (swing-axle rear end also) for a 65-69 Corvair, I would in a NY minute!

Nader's book, while known mostly for the Corvair, actually only has a small section on it. He was correct about the ill handling of the early Corvairs, with their swing axle rear suspension. Chevy should have designed them correctly to begin with, but like most business scum, all they care about is $$$. Ask Ernie Kovacs, among others. I actually had a 1966 Corsa when I was in my 20's, which I enjoyed at the time. By that time, they had FINALLY put in a fully independent rear suspension, basically a coil spring version of what was in the Corvette, which helped a lot, but the car still oversteered quite a bit, yes, even with the correct tire pressures, negative rear camber, etc. Nader was correct about the Corvair, just as he is correct in his assessment of the current crop of corporate pigs who are running things today, to the detriment of the vast proportion of humanity.

Never failed to start but boy were they completely rusted out by than, only a couple years old.
A cheap crappy little car that could have been decent had those at GM given up a tad of the profits and put it back into better engineering.
This films shows the sneaky,deceit that has been part of American Advertising for a long time.
Great American Propaganda at it's best!

NCalBiker: You said that "People need to remember that Mr. Nader was running for a public office at the time of his fabled attacks..." I can't seem to find info about him running for office at the time he published his findings in 1965. Do you know what that office was?
This is like Jane Fonda and the veterans--gearheads are still mad at Nader for the Corvair's demise.

Nice shots of the Corvair for those interested in such things.
To respond to a reviewer below: Mr Nader did indeed take on the VW Beetle, in his 1960s book UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED. He described the safety issues of more than one car.
I used to know a Corvair collector. He had several, and I got to sit in and ride more than one. It was just another clunky old car. The main problem seemed to be the transmissions, which would randomly lock up in the then-vintage vehicles. While the Corvair may have been no more unsafe than many cars of its era, it does bear the distinction of being the car that killed Ernie Kovacs. Bad Corvair. Bad.

I find it interesting that the scare that Mr. Nader instilled, is still carrying on. I can't believe that the majority of the people that defame the Corvair these days, has ever sat in one, much less driven one to the extent that they have first hand knowledge of what they are talking about. After all, production only ran from 1960 to 1969.
I owned a 1964 Monza Spyder, and loved it, swing axle and all. Later, a 1969 Corsa turbo coupe. Wonderful styling, and the performance was wonderful. By this time, the rear suspension had changed from the swing axle, to I.R.S., making the handling a little slippery, but manageable.
People need to remember that Mr. Nader was running for a public office at the time of his fabled attacks, and since there is no such thing as bad publicity, he made a name for himself.
Another item to keep in mind was the period. The cars of the day, 1960, did not handle very well, no not even the highly touted Corvette. Take a '60 Impala around the same corner as the Corvair, and watch the body roll. It's ugly. So, with all this aside, one other car, the VW. Swing axle, rear engine, gas tank in front of windshield. Made of considerably thinner material. Large number of fatalities involved over the years. Did Mr. Nader go after VW? No. Maybe he should have.
The Corvair was a well designed car, just a little ahead of it's time, If you ever have the chance, look at one, closely. Try to understand that the car you are looking at was a new design coming along just after the innovative '55,56 and'57 vintage.
So, now that this has been said, just enjoy the flim for what it is. The Corvair will never be built again, so all you flamers are safe.

When I was in my teens (35-40 years ago) two of my cousins had one of these very safe automobiles. We were between 14 and 16 years old when their dad got them the car(that's how we learned to drive....get an old unwanted car and drive off road for a few years before we turned 16). You can imagine what abuse the Corvair received. They lived on a 200 acre farm and the car was used in the fields for years, from going down creeks to jumping hills to hauling hay in the back seat(the top was cut off with a torch). This was a fine car in any era.
Nader was a bed wetter that needs his diaper changed, or stuffed in his pie hole. LOL !!!!

As a teenager, I never cared for the look of the Corvair. However, this commercial certainly achieves in making this car seem appealing. Unfortunately, the 1960 model had some serious problems that made it unsafe.

Corvairs were very cool looking cars, especially in models that came after this commercial was made. My uncle had a Corvair. He survived when his flipped going around a curve. He never walked the same again, but he survived. I had a Pinto. Great little car. I was hit head-on one time, on the left side another, and then later the right side. Never in the rear. Thank goodness.
This is a nice little short film. I don't remember any six minute commercials running back then.

I would like to apologise for all the reviews I posted under this account.
Also, the styling of early 1960s cars is starting to grow on me.

The Model For Ralph Nader's "Novel"...."Unsafe At Any Speed......Nader Is Still Playing P.T.Barnum....Unfortunatly I Had A Friend Who Owned A Corvair...It Went To The Junkyard..He Went To The Boneyard..!

The car and it's slick Madison Avenue type commercials proved that you could sell crap to anyone. How symbolic of corporate greed that finally GM is getting its "Just Desserts" The point still remains. They put a car on the road that couldn't make it around a slight curve in the road when it rained--for profit. You got a problem with someone messing up your pretty "Homage" to the Corvair site. Too f"in bad

I had a friend who owned a '63 Corvair Spyder with either a supercharger or turbocharger (factory installed) It was a kick to drive; sounded like a VW bug on steroids. There was a big problem with front traction in snow and ice. Most people who owned a Corvair put sacks of sand in the front "trunk" to balance the weight displacement some. Great film; excellent example of 60s automobile marketing. Thanks for sharing it!

Believe it or not, Very few people died because of this car. Same with the Pinto. I'm not lying; Sure, they were flawed, But not quite as dangerous as some would have you believe. Plus, It's quite a nice looking car!

there's just something about 50 year old celluoid
check out our mashup:
http://www.archive.org/details/LikeZero

a wonderful ad for the corvair, it certainly sold me! a rather nice looking car, it's sad how the corvair failed in the market place. seeing this ad makes me want one.wonderful ad for a mis-understood car.one of my favourite ads, better when seen on a tv screen instead of a computer monitor.

Outstanding ad. This was one heck of a car. Putting a car though an obstacle course was a rather novel idea for the era. Notice, as the car runs the course marked "handling" in a huge banner, it does, in fact, get the tail out of whack and lose it at the end. This event is glossed over by the announcer and we move on. Chevy's ad here beat the Ford ad of the same era all to pieces.

Whether the car was controversial or not, can't we agree that this is both a beautiful piece of film, and pretty convincing advertising? Not to mention a gorgeous car...it even looks the same from the back as from the front! I want one NOW!

I simply love the Corvair film. As a Marketing Manager for GM it is great to see the unique way we marketed our vehicles in the past. Keep sending us the great stuff!
Buttles

I like this promotional film if for nothing else than the wide gap between the Corvair as Chevrolet image and the Corvair as the object that made Ralph Nader famous. The color is great but the sound is terrible - sounds like a bad exciter lamp in the film to video transfer. The images prelude the mindless "tough car" SUV commercials today - how often do you drive up a cliff, down a river bed, or through the weeds?. In some respects, the rear engine design was too far ahead of it's time.

People don't want an expensive, well engineered car as much as they want a cute and inexpensive one. This film depicts the 60 Corvair as a fun, safe and tough little car. I drove one for years and it was just that. Too bad the rear stabilizer bar did appear until 64. Ralph never would've had a case. So it was a $15 error that killed the Marque. I currently own a wedge, argueably the perfect fusion of engineering, performance and economy. (Powered by a 163 cubic inch flat six just like the later Corvairs). But, that marque?? also failed even in less time-6 years. As the son of a DM for Chevrolet Sales Division, I've seen lots of Chevy promos. This one is one of the best.
If the wedge-makers had ever come up with a promo as good as this, no doubt they'd still be in production. This film is a tribute to America's most innovative car and fun to watch.
Claymo

Man, all the wonders you can do in your 1960's Corvair! Take it into streams! go uphill of startling degrees! pack you groceries in the hood! This is a merry piece of advertising. I have no idea of what made this car controversial. iIt looks totally fine to me according to this advert.

The two reviews I see, one by "corsa," the other by "Wedgehead," both bring up valid points. For me, the controversy isn't settled.
Interestingly, I have a book by John Z. Delorean (with J. Patrick Wright) called "On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors." (AVON books,copyright 1979 by J. Patrick Wright). Here are some excerpts that both sides may find interesting which deal with the Corvair.(from pages 65-68):
These problems with the Corvair were well documented inside GM's Engineering Staff long before the Corvair ever was offered for sale. Frank Winchell, now vice-president of Engineering, but then an engineer at Chevy, flipped over one of the first prototypes on the GM test track in Milford, Michigan. Others followed.
The questionable safety of the car caused a massive internal fight among GM's engineers over whether the car should be built with another form of suspension. One side of the argument was Chevrolet's then General Manager, Ed Cole, an engineer and product innovater. He and some of his engineering colleagues were enthralled with the idea of building the first modern, rear-engine, American car. And I am convinced they felt the safety risks of the swing-axle suspension were minimal. On the other side was a wide assortment of top-flight engineers, including D. Polhemus, engineer in charge of Chassis Development on GM's Engineering Staff, and others.
These men collectively and individually made vigorous attempts inside GM to keep the Corvair, as designed, out of production or to change the suspension system to make the car safer. One top corporate engineer told me that he showed his test results to Cole but by then, he said, "Cole's mind was made up."
Albert Roller, who worked for me in Pontiac's Advanced Engineering section, tested the car and pleaded with me not to use it at Pontiac. Roller had been an engineer with Mercedes-Benz before joining GM, and he said that Mercedes had tested similarly designed rear-engine, swing-axle cars and had found them far too unsafe to build.
At the very least, then, within General Motors in the late 1950s, serious questions were raised about the Corvair's safety. At the very most, there was a mountain of documented evidence that the car should not be built as it was then designed.
. . . The results were disastrous. . . Young Corvair owners, therefore, were trying to bend their car around curves at high speeds and were killing themselves in alrming numbers.
. . . The son of Cal Verner, general manager of the Cadillac Division, was killed in a Corvair . . .The son of Cy Osborne, an executive vice-president in the 1960s, was critically injured in a Corvair and suffered irreparable brain damage. Bunkie Knudsen's niece was brutally injured in a Corvair. And the son of an Indianapolis Cherolet dealer was also killed in a Corvair . . .
When Knudsen took over the reins of Cherolet in 1961, he insisted that he was given corporate authorization to install a stablizing bar in the rear to counteract the natural tendencies of the Corvair to flip off the road. The cost of the change would be about $15 a car. But his request was refused by The Fourteenth Floor as "too expensive."
Bunkie was livid. As I understnad it, he went to the Executive Committee and told the top officers of the corporation that, if they didn't reappraise his request and give him permission to make the Corvair safe, he was going to resign from General Motors. This threat and the fear of the bad publicity that surely would result from Knudsen's resignation forced management's hand. They relented. Bunkie put a stabilizing bar on the Corvair in the 1964 models. The next year a completlely new and safer independent suspenion designed by Frank Winchell [the "diagonal pivot swing axle" by the way] was put on the Corvair. And it became on the of safest cars on the road. . . .
There wasn't a man in top GM management who had anything to do with the Corvair who would purposely build a car that he knew would hurt or kill people. But, as part of a management team pushing for increased sales and profits, each gave his individual approval in a group of decisions which produced the car in the face of the serious doubts that were raised about its safety, and then later sought to squelch information which might prove the car's deficiencies.
. . . In April of 1971, 19 boxes of microfilmed Corvair owner complaints, which had been ordered destroyed by upper managment, turned up in the possession of two suburban Detroit junk dealers. When The Fourteenth Floor found this out, it went into panic and we at Chevrolet were ordered to buy the microfilm back and have it destroyed.[End of excerpts]
One of the things that "corsa" mentioned is the fact that Porsche -- certainly one of the most prestigous autos on the road -- used the same rear-engine, swing axle design for ages. But isn't it also true that while these Porsches that used this method were known for the their agility -- that 1)at the same time their handling characteristics have been described as "tricky" by professional drivers because of this design and 2) that only truly experienced drivers are able to exploit the positive characteristics of the rear-engine, simple swing-axle? (These tricky characteristics would tend to be more present in the older rear-engine Porsches, for continued development has constantly improved this design.)
Likewise, Porsche is obviously more committed into thorough testing and R&D than GM is (and was!) before releasing a product line. Hence their extreme cost comparatively. Historically, GM has had many more recalls dealing with safety problems than Porsche, as you might expect.
For me, back in my youth, I tended to listen more to Brock Yates and the like. While I still respect those on that side of the argument, I think they should not be the only ones to listen to in this apparently endless controversy. (Nor the NHTSA, for that matter, since often gov't entities are no more immune from corporate influence -- or for that matter, simple mistakes -- than anyone else -- as I am sure Brock Yates would agree with!).

I found the video introducing the ÂNew Corvair very enjoyable. What I found annoying was the totally ignorant review by Wedgehead. Mr.Wedgehead ( a name I find very appropriate), rambles on about truth in advertising. Too bad he doesnÂt apply the truth to his poor attempt at a review. I find it unlikely that a college educated Automotive engineer (are you kidding!!?!?) in his and I quote ÂLAST THIRTIES (is that a new way to give your age? That means IÂm in my first forties.) would not be able to coherently compose a few paragraphs without the great number of spelling and grammatical errors
we learn about in elementary school. At least ten spelling error but why dwell on it, Mr. Wedgehead obviously canÂt spell. Lets get down to cases and try to figure out what MR Wedgehead is talking about . Now Wedgie the so called engineer rambles on about how the design of the independent rear suspension of the first generation Corvairs was a result of faulty engineering. Wedgie the so called engineer should know, isnÂt that right?? Hey Wedgie, how about the two other cars of the era with the same type swingaxle design. You happen to recall the names of those two automobiles, with the Âdeathtrap style swingaxle rear suspensions. Oh yeah, I remember, the Volkswagen beetle and that awful handling Porsche. I canÂt understand why GM would want to used the same type of rear suspension as that terrible handling awful Porsche. Your description of the rear suspension was also in error Wedgie my boy. For an engineer you sure need to bone up.
The rear suspension consists of a Swingaxle. Two control arms, upper and lower are what you would find on the front suspension, are we getting our directions mixed up Wedgie? You seem to be spouting the same old tired rhetoric that was disproved many years ago. In 1972, the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration found that the 1960-63 handled at least as good as other contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic. I quote ÂThe handling and stability performance of
the 1960-1963 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rolloverÂ. So Wedgie the so called engineer, I guess the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has confirmed that you donÂt know what youÂre talking about.
Now that we have shown that your engineering expertise is totally suspect, lets
examine your claim that the video is deceptive. Speaking of deceptive, the death of Ernie
Kovacs was tragic, but you failed to mention that he was drunk and wrapped his car around a pole. The car did not roll, which is the deadly handling problem you claimed the Corvair had in your review. The police believed that a combination of Mr. Kovacs unsafe drunk driving, rain slick road and possibly handling a lit cigar contributed to the accident. The safety of the vehicle was never listed as a factor. Now who is being deceptive?
Now lets see what your other evidence is. OOPS, after reading your review again,
I find that you donÂt have any evidence from the video. Your evidence consist entirely in your imagination! You say that because they donÂt show the rear wheel during the Road-Bump test, it must be a conspiracy! GM is hiding something. If we follow your twisted reasoning it must be because the rear is defective. Get REAL Wedgie, IÂm sure
the rear wheel went up and down just like the front ones. They have shocks and coils springs in the back too, or didnÂt you know. Then you even top the first delusion with the totally bonehead statement that they video doesnÂt show the complete Figure-8 test because the Driver almost loses control. So Wedgie, where did you get that piece of information? They didnÂt show the whole Figure-8 Test, so how would you know what happens after they cut away? Where you there in 1959
when this was filmed? I doubt it. Just another one of your delusions. That goes for the other imaginary claims you make about the Slalom test and test dummies in the roll over test. Wedgie claims that there are no test dummies in the car are false too. Just like his other claims. You can clearly see the Test Dummies in the car when it rolls over and nothing is ejected. The only Dummy around here is Wedgie.
DonÂt let self styled experts ruin your enjoyment of this really cool vintage car video. The Corvair was a revolutionary car in its day, and many of the innovation it introduced are found in the vehicles we drive today. Sure, cars built in 1960 arenÂt as safe as cars built today. Just donÂt pay attention to misinformation from these so called experts. Reviewers like Mr. Wedgehead who obviously doesnÂt know what heÂs talking about and uses items not shown in the video as his proof.. So as Wedgie so aptly
concluded in his review, Âsit back and enjoy and hopefully he will try to put a little more ÂTRUTH in his next review.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much... twice, as a matter of fact!